Posted on 02/04/2017 2:01:56 AM PST by GeaugaRepublican
Opening Statement On Friday, a Boston federal judge issued a 21 page decision debunking the arguments against Trump’s Executive Order suspending migration from certain countries pending further review. Later that same day, a Seattle federal judge who has been making the news lately (and not usually for the most flattering of reasons), declared his oral intention to sign an order limiting some aspects of the executive order. In the courtroom, whose position is likely to ultimately win?
(Excerpt) Read more at lawnewz.com ...
Rather, are there a number of specified rights (eg unjust confiscation/exercise of property) that trump national security? The left was clever in shopping this case to a liberal judge that limited his decision to one of contract law with an intentional by-product of blocking the EO.
It doesn't take a genius to see where this could lead if it were allowed to stand. There's the possibility of all manner of harm to individuals/states due to federal national security policy.
I highly doubt the 9th will uphold even if they are the most liberal district. It would lead directly to a constitutional crisis when Trump decides to simply ignore the court's authority and sets the stage for impeachment.
Then Congress is forced to limit the court's jurisdiction by legislative action, and they lose all the power they've been so carefully cultivating over the years.
This is all the Left has remaining after 8 years of obama ... just the courts ... a powerful ally to the Left, nonetheless.
This will be overturned by the 9th circuit appeals court.
“or controlled by congress.”
They are Absolutely Controlled by CONgress according to Article 3, Section 2.
...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
They have Only exercised this option ONCE in the History of the Republic, and it’s high time to use it again.
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions. One has to wonder how a previous Congress might have responded to Alberto Gonzales’s endless recitations of “I do not recall.”
Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR
No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!
CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.” http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
You really have faith in that? Isn’t the 9th Circuit still dominated by leftist judges? If so, forget the law!
The 9th circuit court is the most liberal court in the US but they defended the 2nd amendment big time a few years and this case is pretty cut and dried. They are not looking to be quickly overturned by SCOTUS.
Ignore it. The hack has no power to obstruct this EO, and the Pres. should say so. This low-life punk should serve the sentence for any of his criminals and terrorists coming into America, including the death sentence. This sh!t has gotta stop.
There are multiple problems with the Seattle Judge's order, some covered in the article. First, no actual finding of fact specific to this case, e.g. here is how the parties are injured...
Second the purpose of a TRO is to preserve the status quo and prevent further injury until the matter can be heard properly. The status quo is everyone sitting where they are. Open boarders and free traffic in potential terrorists, as this judge has ruled, is not in any rational sense preserving the status quo under rule of law.
And then, of course, there is the more fundamental issue that the law gives Trump the authority to preclude individuals and classes from entry if there is a basis for believing they will harm the country. The Boston judge concluded Trump met that rather minimal standard in the exercise of discretion clearly granted him.
The "rational basis" bar is a low one. Since one court found a rational basis, there is a rational basis for the ban. That you [not YOU] disagree with the decision made by the guy granted discretion to make the decision, the President, is not a lawful basis for overturning his reasonable exercise of HIS and not YOUR discretion.
While everything you say of Congress is true, there’s an obvious problem. Congress is largely made up of people who do not agree with one another. It is an institution with polarized factions that rarely come to a consensus on issues that you and I find very common agreement upon. The older I get the more I understand why Monarchies and Empires have been the norm throughout human history rather than democracy (whether direct or indirect).
Congress is largely made up of people who do not agree with one another.
I believe it is because most are Statist’s instead of Statesmen. Very few are there for the People they represent, most are there for the Bribe Money and Prestige that goes along with it.
Which brings me to President Trump. Would you rather be led the person that has sold their sole and morality like a $2 whore or be led by the Businessman that had to Buy their Services and Pay their Bribe Money to get the job done and stay in business???
Good summation and I agree that it could lead to this “It would lead directly to a constitutional crisis”.
Agreed! Well stated.
...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
They have Only exercised this option ONCE in the History of the Republic, and it’s high time to use it again.
Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!
______________________________________________________
Congress can decide which cases the lower courts can hear. If a case is heard in a lower court then it can be appealed until there is a law which says otherwise, there is no law. There never will be a law that denies the Supreme Court appeal rights.
The only place to stop it is in the lower courts. It would be easy for congress to take away their jurisdiction. Even then I would not be surprised to see the Supreme Court take a case they had no right to take and declare they do, then what do you do. Ever since Marshall decided that it was the final arbitrator of what is and isn't Constitutional they have made themselves the most powerful of the three branches of government.
Your comment strikes right to the heart of what truly ails this country. We now have a large portion of the population who are essentially in a state of rebellion against the spirit and letter of our country's founding charter, while the other portion still bears allegiance to it.
As you noted, the country can't long endure this level of extreme polarization without experiencing a critical failure of one or more parts of our societal machinery. Something's got to give.
As Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." It does seem as though we're moving toward some sort of showdown in this country, where the two opposing sides will finally settle their disagreements once and for all. The only question is, what form that final showdown will take, and whether we'll remain one nation, or two.
Unlike in the 1860s, our ideological division doesn't follow simple geographical lines. The opposing sides are physically mixed like a salad. Instead of North versus South, it's house versus house. If it comes to a divorce, we won't be easily separated - even if one or more blue states secedes.
The more I look at our situation, the more I think we could be entering the darkest chapter of our history. Whatever the final outcome and resolution, it won't be pretty, nor will it be painless.
Once this is overturned, the judge needs to be asked to resign or be impeached.
They are wrong. Even without considering Al-Awlaki and his disciple Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, I can't figure out where they got the number zero.
One example for Somalia here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/28/ohio-state-attack-just-latest-stain-on-somali-community-columbus.html
I think Boston played it right. The Seattle Bush appointed judge is the kook.
Frankly, I think this might turn out in our favor in more than one way. The ruling per se is wrong—that’ll be overturned, but when it IS overturned, it’ll strengthen Trump’s had to expand his work to stop terrorism from being imported.
The judge is in the wrong branch of government, he should run for Congress.
This adjudicator needs two things in his immediate future:
1) an axe handle
2) a wood shed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.